memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Sulfur/Archive2008
This user believes in keeping talk page conversations in one place. If you leave a comment here, expect a reply on this page. Blah! :For older discussions, see the 2006 archives or the 2007 archives. Ultraice Hey, do me a favor will you,QUIT pestering me on memory alpha and beta or i will have you banned on both sites.--Ultraice 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Quote Data does actually say "Oh...Shit". I had it censored. That is why it was placed in the Colorful metaphor article. 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :Please keep conversations in one place. See Talk:Colorful metaphor. -- Sulfur 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC) travelled/traveled Um, Sulfur, 'travelled' isn't actually a typo. Both single and double 'l' are accepted. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC) :True... but it's best to spell it consistently across the board. And there were far fewer references to "travelled" than "traveled" (~70 vs ~600 :) ). -- Sulfur 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Source for Vulcan translation Wasn't sure if you got this or not, this wiki stuff is pretty unfamiliar to me. Translation provided by a linguist at the Vulcan Language Dictionary, based on what was in the script. It makes sense too given how T'Pol was acting when she was saying it. -- Captain X yeah, i saw that today. it came out of nowhere. --Bp 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) A question for you Hi, Sulfur! I have just joined yesterday, and I am wondering if you would be able to point me to a guideline on non-canon redirects (I see you have a link to a list of such redirects on your user page, but I couldn't figure out what the policy regarding them is). I skimmed through the MoS, but could not find anything about redirects. I do understand that non-canon subjects aren't supposed to have their own articles, but are redirects OK? What about strictly non-canon topics which are mentioned, for example, in several books? Do you folks have a disambiguation pages system here and, if so, what are the disambig guidelines? Thanks!—Eta Carinae 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Redirects are sometimes OK. Depending on context. And usually only get kept if an article with that name gets created a few times. :) :In terms of characters that appear in multiple novels/comics/etc, we do have some non-canon characters articles out there to collect those. :We also have disambiguations, see this page here for the complete listing. Generally, we try not to disambig something unless there are more than three options for it. :Hopefully those sorta answer your questions, or at least give you some starting points to explore some more and learn some more. -- Sulfur 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, that helps. Now, to look at this from the practical application standpoint—I started to expand the Mission to Horatius article yesterday with the intent to list all of the characters and major concepts mentioned in that novel. My question is: would it be OK (as far as guidelines and established practices are concerned) if I start creating redirects to the article from those concepts which have not been mentioned anywhere else? For example, I take it that NGC 434, for example, is only mentioned in this novel. Would it be OK to create a redirect from NGC 434 to the NGC section of "Mission to Horatius"? Same goes for minor crew and guest characters. Then, if later one of those minor characters turns up in a different book, would it be OK to create a disambig (or, as you said, even an article) about that person? Sorry for all the questions, but despite having a vast Wikipedia editing experience I am not yet really comfortable here as the guiding principles are surprisingly different.—Eta Carinae 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Hrm... I'm not entirely convinced that it is a good idea, unless they start showing up in other books. If they don't, then there likely shouldn't be extra redirects/etc. Now, if you want to go into significantly more detail on the book and its contents, I would suggest also checking out our sister wiki, Memory Beta, which concentrates on the "non-canon" stuff (read: licensed material, such as novels, comics, games, and suchnot), and has separate articles for characters that are only introduced in that media. :Don't take this as me telling you to go away and only edit there though. I would encourage you to finish the article here, and then if you want to go into more detail on the characters, we can put in cross-wiki links from the novel page here over to the individual character articles on MB, for example. You can see an example of this in action on this page, where you see the Greek Beta symbol. -- Sulfur 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, crap, I knew it wouldn't turn out to be easy :) Thanks for the MB pointer, though—I've never even heard of them before today. Anyway, my rationale for creating those redirects is as follows. There are tons and tons of Star Trek books out there. I am sure some hardcore Trekkers managed to read them all, but giving a detailed account on each and every book is (judging from what you folks already have here) is still far far away from becoming a reality. If I list every thing worth mentioning in the "Mission to Horatius" article and ensure that each of those things redirect there (providing, of course, that they don't already have an article of their own), that would be extremely helpful if someone down the road happens to stumble upon the same concept in another book, plugs in into the search field, and lands in an article about a book which already mentions it. To me, that's enormous help in building a web of concepts. If, on the other hand, the redirect is not created, it would be really hard to discover even if the concept turn up in another book (hypothetically speaking, if you pick up a new book mentioning NGC 400, without a redirect it'd be next to impossible for you to know that it's already been mentioned in "Mission to Horatius"). If, however, the redirecting concept never shows up anywhere else, the redirect would not be of any harm to anyone. Does my logic make sense? Am I missing something important? Thanks!—Eta Carinae 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) ::I don't think the redirects are necessary. Memory Beta is the perfect place for this, not only for redirects but also for proper articles about NGC 400 and the likes. On Memory Beta, similar pages can be created without violating the site's policies. --Jörg 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, never mind; I probably just don't know what the hell I am talking about :) I've just looked at "Mission to Horatius" on MB, and it seems they already did exactly what I intended to do with this article here, only better :) I guess I need to read up on MA & MB policies a bit more and decide just where my services would be more helpful and to figure out precisely in which ways MA's "Mission to Horatius" article is supposed to differ from that same article on MB (if MB is for all things non-canon, why does MA even have this article at all?). Sorry for taking up your time and thanks for all the good advice!—Eta Carinae 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Part of the reason we had them at first was because MB didn't exist. :) :There are actually three different Star Trek wikis that each highlight different aspects of the whole Trek franchise: Memory Alpha for "canon" information, Memory Beta for "non-canon official" (novels etc.) information, and last but not least Star Trek Expanded Universe for "non-canon inofficial" (fandom) information. We'd like to keep these aspects separate to avoid confusion, and having some non-canon redirects to novel pages is more a convenience for us (done if a page has been created several times already) than something we'd like to see done for all possible non-canon topics and concepts. :We provide information on the novels, comics, etc, because they are products. Memory Beta goes into serious in-depth detail on them. We (generally) try to provide a summary, a list of references (and what they are), a list of characters (canon and otherwise), and so forth. :P.S. Check out s for the "rules" on indenting... you may have noticed that we keep changing your indenting level to keep them consistency. :) -- Sulfur 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up! I don't think I'm going to wrap my head around the fandom wiki (not something I'm really interested in anyway), but keeping the aspects separate makes sense. Judging from what I've read so far, should my edits to Mission to Horatius be reverted? I'd hate to leave a mess, especially since most of what I've done there belongs on MB anyway. Sorry about the indentation problem—I was wondering what the heck that was about. I guess my Wikipedia habits of incrementing the indentation are not easy to break :) Again, thanks for everything—I feel on a much sturdier ground today than yesterday! Best,—Eta Carinae 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Re: Indents... no worries. :Re: Your edits to the Horatius article, feel free to finish those off. You can also take your changes to over to Memory Beta and improve that wiki at the same time. If you look at some of the "non-canon" articles I've put together along the way, you'll see that your edits to Horatius are definitely welcome here. :) -- Sulfur 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Intelligence Gathering I'm doing exactly the same thing. D'oh! :D I was just about to upload both covers and create the issue article. Do you want me to proceed, or do you have that info prepped already? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Feel free to do the covers, I hadn't done them yet, but was just getting ready to drop the "completed" article in place (without the summary as yet -- that I was going to write a bit later today). I usually get these done when they come out, but I've been busy with work and travel the last two days. Doh. -- Sulfur 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) OK. I'll upload them now, so you can slot them into your article. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) "Jumping the gun" I'm sorry, but I really resent the accusation being made that I was "jumping the gun". The article in question clearly had no content making it have to do with Fantome's species, I am quite frankly mystified as to the choice to merge there. The only content in the article had to do with Night Alien, and we have long had the standard of bringing poor duplicates up for deletion via PfD. I am not prescient, I cannot know what irrational merge suggestion having basically nothing to do with the article contents as they stood is going to be. I can only follow the practices we have set out, and poor duplicates with no useful content worth merging have been brought up for deletion by PfD or VfD as long as I have been editing here. I take offense to the accusation you made. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :Not just you. It's been happening a lot lately. The thing is, most of the time, people slap on or a delete tag, and those could be sorted out by looking at the things that link there. Most of the time there's something, and looking through those links on void alien (for example) suggested what the link should've been to almost immediately. :I wasn't trying to single you out. I was trying (and maybe not succeeding) to suggest that people research for a few minutes before simply slapping a delete or cite onto an article. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. -- Sulfur 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) This didn't need research. It named Night Alien and the void in the article. You guys are plainly wrong on your merge as well. It doesn't matter what the original red link was for, the contents of the article were a crappy duplicate of Night Alien, and had nothing at all to do with Fantome's species. This wasn't a case of needing citation, the contents, as crappy as they were, made clear what they were about. Whether "I am the only one" this is directed at or not, I am among them and feel it was completely out of line, and that the merge was completely wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :For the reasoning behind the merge, see my last comment here. In short, two of the three links that previously went there mentioned Fantome. The content of the article, not good. The stuff pointing at it? Just pointing to the wrong place. -- Sulfur 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The stuff pointing to it isn't it. I can create a link on my user page or anywhere else with incorrect information, it doesn't change the content of the article itself. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks For cleaning up the vandalism redirects. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) History Please keep the English history article accurate, Scotland was never part of the British empire... it was part of Britain itself. Previous to 1707 and the act of union between Scotland and England that formed The Kingdom Of Great Britain (Brought about a Scottish king inheriting the English throne), Scotland had fought several successful wars of independance. My point is that it is inaccurate to include a component nation of a country in the regions controlled by that very country as Scotland has equal status within the union and was never subject to England during the period of the British Empire (British means anything pertaining to England, Scotland, Wales or the island of Great Britain as a whole). movie quotes You said that wonder why all quotes on the Star Trek IV page weren't done the same. I don't see any difference. What did I do when I rearranged them that screwed them up and what's the difference? I don't get it. – leandar 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :May not have been you... but quotes are formatted: ::"blah blah" :Whereas a bunch of quotes were: ::"blah blah" :Notice the order of the double and single quotes. :) :It's all about layout! -- Sulfur 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC) So in other words, always put the italic marks (I swear I'll get this right, lol) before the quotation marks and after the quotation marks? – leandar 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :The double quote mark is completely outside of the quote. It's like a set of (). Next level is the italics. Third, and final, level is the quote itself. This is correct: ::"This is a correct quote format." :Make more sense? :) -- Sulfur 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, thanks. :) – leandar 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Revert Thanks for catching that. I think I used the "undo" button, which only goes back one edit. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Sic It's Sulphur, not Sulfur. 90.185.57.80 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :Actually, it's both: see . Kind of like and aluminum. – Cleanse 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Eplink repair; no apologies necessary... If it was broken, it oughtta be fixed. I don't feel *that* strong a sense of ownership over my userpage, anyway. – Persist1 20:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :It's more one of those things that when I edit a userpage, I make a point of "apologizing" in the update field, since we're not supposed to edit them except for offensive stuff or vandalism. :) -- Sulfur 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry Hey, looks like your message was not saved here. Sorry. – Tom 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :Fyi... :) -- Sulfur 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) You told me to get one, so I got one. You said people would take me more seriously if I got an account, and here I am! =) Happy now? --Elohssa Naer'uoy 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Metadata Sulf, what's the bug with the metadata? Is it that you can't see the info on the right hand side? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :The issue is that it's not respecting out CSS really. That and even if the metadata for an image is completely empty, it occasionally makes an appearance, and even when the metadata is chock full of info... it's not always showing up. :) -- Sulfur 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, it is respecting our CSS - I just had a look, and MediaWiki:Monobook.css says table.mw_metadata td { background-color: #fcfcfc; } which is white. That value just needs changing to conform with the rest of the site CSS. I did it in my own stylesheet a few days ago, figuring it was a conflict between my stylesheet and the site-wide one. The other stuff I don't know about, but this one is fixable. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :Hrm. I somehow missed that bit. Fixed that color now. But the stuff shows up occasionally, but not always. And that's the bigger issue. :) -- Sulfur 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) IRC Hey. Can you visit the IRC for a moment? – Tom 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)